and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

A company recently stopped adding certain phosphates, including peroxyphosphates, to its laundry detergents after its CEO read reports that these compounds foster dangerous levels of marine plant growth and thus disrupt nearby marine ecosystems. As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Apart from phosphates, there are no other compounds commonly present in laundry detergents that would disrupt marine ecosystems. your answer

(B) Not all phosphates contribute to marine ecosystem damage.

(C) Phosphates in amounts large enough to disrupt marine ecosystems in the nearby river are not naturally present in the laundry detergents the company produces. correct

(D) This laundry detergent producing company has been able to duplicate the bleaching effect produced by peroxyphosphates through means that do not involve adding any environmentally damaging substances.

(E) Laundry detergents are the only products made by the company to which phosphates are added. _________________

My will shall shape the future. Whether I fail or succeed shall be no man's doing but my own.

A company recently stopped adding certain phosphates, including peroxyphosphates, to its laundry detergents after its CEO read reports that these compounds foster dangerous levels of marine plant growth and thus disrupt nearby marine ecosystems. As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Apart from phosphates, there are no other compounds commonly present in laundry detergents that would disrupt marine ecosystems. your answer

(B) Not all phosphates contribute to marine ecosystem damage.

(C) Phosphates in amounts large enough to disrupt marine ecosystems in the nearby river are not naturally present in the laundry detergents the company produces. correct

(D) This laundry detergent producing company has been able to duplicate the bleaching effect produced by peroxyphosphates through means that do not involve adding any environmentally damaging substances.

(E) Laundry detergents are the only products made by the company to which phosphates are added.

(A) cannot be the answer as the conclusion is talking about the damage caused by phosphates only.C is the answer because, if Phosphates is already naturally present in the laundry detergent then addition or no addition of phosphates will not have any effect on ecosystem.(In assumption type if option iself and negation of the option,give opposite result then that option is the answer.) _________________

I would go for A . Reason : The author assumes that since these ecosystem damaging phosphate has been removed there will no ecosystem damage caused as there are no other compounds commonly present in laundry detergents that would disrupt marine ecosystems!!!

"As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces "

I would go for A . Reason : The author assumes that since these ecosystem damaging phosphate has been removed there will no ecosystem damage caused as there are no other compounds commonly present in laundry detergents that would disrupt marine ecosystems!!!

"As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces "

" the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents "

this is why A or E is not possible; the conclusion talks only about ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundary. _________________

--Syed" Some are desperate for success, and therefore destined for it."

And there is no official answer provided, can we have the source of this question?

Official explaination is even better!

Thanks.

The answer is C for me.

It can't be A because the last sentence of the stimulus says "As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces."So we could go with opposite of A and the argument would still hold. For instance, we could say there are other compounds (say chlorides) in the detergent that would cause ecosystem damage. Yet the last statement would still hold: we are looking out for "ecosystem damage caused by phosphates", not "ecosystem damage caused by chlorides."So we are still good as this is not a necessary assumption for that last statement to hold.

As per E, we can negate that as well and still uphold the last statement of the stimulus: If we assume the company produces pesticides, say, to which phosphates are also added, we could still say "company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents (not pesticides!) the company produces"

But for C, if we assume it is a necessary assumption, i.e. even though the factory stops adding phosphates, the naturally occurring phosphates in the detergent are large enough to still cause the pollution. So this is 100% a necessary assumption. Hence C is the answer

And there is no official answer provided, can we have the source of this question?

Official explaination is even better!

Thanks.

The answer is C for me.

It can't be A because the last sentence of the stimulus says "As a result, the river near this company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents the company produces."So we could go with opposite of A and the argument would still hold. For instance, we could say there are other compounds (say chlorides) in the detergent that would cause ecosystem damage. Yet the last statement would still hold: we are looking out for "ecosystem damage caused by phosphates", not "ecosystem damage caused by chlorides."So we are still good as this is not a necessary assumption for that last statement to hold.

As per E, we can negate that as well and still uphold the last statement of the stimulus: If we assume the company produces pesticides, say, to which phosphates are also added, we could still say "company's factory will not display ecosystem damage caused by phosphates in the laundry detergents (not pesticides!) the company produces"

But for C, if we assume it is a necessary assumption, i.e. even though the factory stops adding phosphates, the naturally occurring phosphates in the detergent are large enough to still cause the pollution. So this is 100% a necessary assumption. Hence C is the answer